December 2012
Right to Peaceful Assembly
by Ricardo Soto
I Introduction
A The First Amendment of the Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Harr, Hess & Orthmann, 2012, p127, 157).
How has the right to peaceful assembly clause in the First Amendment been interpreted by the courts throughout U.S. history?
Let us take a look at this question by answering it.
B Reasons for Selection
The reasons for selecting right to peaceably assemble clause are based on compounded personal experiences leading into historical, political, technological, legal, and sociological First Amendment aspects. Personally, a lot of wrongs have been done making me feel as though I am on some sort of life sentence. Intelligence wants to make you believe that a public record is read by every single person and that you are not qualified to hold an executive officer position. Even if you have loads of talent—holding more than ten awards—it is taken away from you because of misuse interpretations of Acts. If you speak out, law enforcement or intelligence is there to counter the words with some sort of news release. Counterintelligence has gone too far. You are basically left with nothing but dreams as life is taken away from you. Unless, you go all-in to that field with a masters or certification thus paying enormous amounts of money even if you already know the field. Education seems to be the only way out—even getting the interest of USC MPA. Intelligence wants to make you believe that speaking out will ruin your reputation and is thus self-inflicted. This can make you believe not to speak out and hold it in, but no one will know for the rest of your life. For some unusual reason, intelligence likes to be scolded—publicly. This is one of the main reasons I am going to pursue law school next year [this was written in 2012]. The right to peaceably assemble is the path to get those rights back even if it includes stripping away their rights. Surprisingly, Joel Osteen says to forgive those that have hurt you and somehow it will go away. Yet, probable cause says its own end compounds (p95-97) itself, which basically ignores forgiveness into inevitable political crossings. If it is happening to me, then it is happening to others. Historically, Declaration of Independence illustrates King of Great Britain repeated injuries to others including retaliation for petitioning (p444-446). The signers of the Declaration of Independence risked betrayal, beatings, and even death for calling out their king (p11). Politically, Martin Luther King, Jr. rose to the challenge of racial retaliation, which I learned about in ENG101HR Honors English and COMM131 Fundamentals of Public Speaking. Technologically, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has carried on the civil liberties fight. I first heard about EFF at UCLA when its founder John Perry Barlow spoke for the 30th Anniversary of the Internet. EFF as a 501(c)3 has challenged the Secret Service, Department of Justice, and NSA in its legal fights. Legally, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) continues to expand its rights fight beyond the First Amendment. The Patriot Act, as well as, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has orchestrated these inevitable political crossings into lawsuit filings by both EFF and ACLU. Sociologically, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not like to be wrong as shown through their constant press campaigns. However, who are the foreign terrorists when domestically DHS is intruding into the right to peaceably assemble? Even having a nonprofit endorsed and certified by the state does not deter such intrusion, but rather releases its informants to make you look bad. This is not true democracy.
II Facts
A Historical Cases
The Ralph M Brown Act in California allows for right of the public to attend, as well as, participate in meetings rather than not being informed or holding secret workshops. This is not always the case as cities are finding out they are not abiding by the Brown Act, which is directly related to the First Amendment. In addition, today the Voting Rights Act is still under fire with many cases being overturned by the courts due to voting rights act violations. Illinois First Amendment Center provides various Supreme Court cases regarding right to peaceably assemble. In a 1876 Supreme Court case Chief Justice Waite remanded thus applying redress of grievances to "federal government encroachment,” which consisted of felony argument counts of unlawful intimidation and oppression of their lawful right to peaceably assemble (United States v. Cruikshank 542). In a 1937 Supreme Court case Chief Justice Hughes reversed thus applying the right to peaceably assemble and petition to the states for redress of grievances under the Fourteenth Amendment (De Jonge v. Oregon 353). In a 1939 Supreme Court case the court affirmed concurring right to peaceably assemble could not be prosecuted making public streets and sidewalks as forums (Hague v. C.I.O. 496). In a 1940 Supreme Court case Justice Murphy reversed thus union picketing as peaceful assemble was also protected as free speech rather than as loitering (Thornhill v. Alabama 88). In a 1941 Supreme Court case Chief Justice Hughes affirmed thus establishing reasonable use of streets for safety and order (Cox v. New Hampshire 569). In a 1963 Supreme Court case Justice Stewart reversed thus overturning state law as unconstitutional in its attempt to limit a peaceful march to the state capitol as not allowing fear of a disorderly crowd to hinder their constitutional rights (Edwards v. South Carolina 229).
B Supreme Court Cases
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review oral arguments in Amnesty et al. v. Clapper on Monday, October 29, 2012—couple days before Halloween. ACLU states this case is challenging the constitutionality of national domestic surveillance of Americans email and phone communications by the National Security Agency. The Court of Appeals said such intrusion affects “privacy and free speech rights” on constitutional grounds requiring the court to intervene. Originally, surveillance is to go through the FISA courts for a court-issued warrant, but have proceeded with arbitrary monitoring of lawyers, journalists, and human rights organizations who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the position of the ACLU:
“The act is scheduled to sunset in December. The ACLU is calling for amendments that would limit surveillance of Americans to suspected terrorists and criminals, require the government to be more transparent about how the law is being used and place stronger restrictions on the retention and dissemination of information that is collected about innocent Americans.”
Technology was supposed to make our lives easier and quite frankly it did. The boom of the internet showed its power. Corporate leaders say every industry goes through its boom and bust. However, people are not that convinced within the entrepreneurial world as the above Supreme Court case signifies. Entrepreneurs are not the only ones who have been affected but Americans in general who have to go back to advocacy basics. In a 1951 Supreme Court case Chief Justice Vinson reversed a conviction regarding religious speech on public streets. This case has expanded right to peaceably assemble on public streets (Kunz v New York 290) as witnessed during marches, as well as, gathering petitions.
III Works Cited
“A History of Protecting Freedom Where Law and Technology Collide.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
“ACLU in Supreme Court Monday for Challenge to NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Law.” American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. ACLU, 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2012.
“Amnesty et al. v. Clapper: FISA Amendments Act Challenge.” American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. ACLU, 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2012.
Brown Act: California's Open Meeting Law. BrownAct.4t.com, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
Cox v. New Hampshire. 312 U.S. 569. Supreme Court of the US. 1941. Justia US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
DeJonge v. Oregon. 299 U.S. 353. Supreme Court of the US. 1937. Justia US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
Edwards v. South Carolina. 372 U.S. 229. Supreme Court of the US. 1963. Justia US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
“First Amendment Court Cases Right to Peaceably Assemble.” Illinois First Amendment Center. McCormick Foundation and the Chicago Sun-Times Charity Trust, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization. 307 U.S. 496. Supreme Court of the US. 1939. Justia US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
Harr, J, Karen Hess, and Christine Orthmann. Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
“Keyword: FISA.” American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. ACLU, n.d. Web. 28 Oct 2012.
Kunz v. New York. 340 U.S. 290. Supreme Court of the US. 1951. Justia US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
Supreme Court of the United States. Home - Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS, 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
Thornhill v. Alabama. 310 U.S. 88. Supreme Court of the US. 1940. Justia US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
United States v. Cruikshank. 92 U.S. 542. Supreme Court of the US. 1875. Justia US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.